IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

ADAM CHASTEEN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action 2:12-cv-229 

 Judge Marbley

Magistrate Judge King

ROD JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT and RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated in the

Madison Correctional Institution [“MaCI”], has filed another motion for

interim injunctive relief. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary

Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction, Doc. No. 28. For the

reasons that follow, it is RECOMMENDED that the motion be denied.

Interim injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy that

should be granted only after the Court has carefully considered the

following four factors: 

(1) whether the movant has established a “strong” likelihood

of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant would

otherwise suffer irreparable injury; (3) whether issuance of

a preliminary injunction would cause substantial harm to

others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by

issuance of a preliminary injunction.

Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729, 736 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing McPherson

v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 119 F.3d 453, 459 (6th Cir. 1997)

(en banc), quoting Sandison v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 64 F.3d

1026, 1030 (6th Cir. 1995)). When considering these factors, a district

court should balance each factor against the others to arrive at its

ultimate determination. Id. These factors are not prerequisites to

Case: 2:12-cv-00229-ALM-NMK Doc #: 30 Filed: 07/09/12 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
injunctive relief; rather, they are factors that the Court must balance. 

In re Delorean Motor Co., 755 F.2d at 1229; Michigan Bell Tel. Co. v.

Engler, 257 F.3d 587, 592 (6th Cir. 2001) (no single factor is

determinative.); Monongahela Power Co. v. Schriber, 322 F. Supp.2d 902,

918 (S.D. Ohio 2004)(same). However, a preliminary injunction should not

issue where there is simply no likelihood of success on the merits. 

Michigan State AFL-CIO v. Miller, 103 F.3d 1240, 1249 (6th Cir. 1997).

In his current motion, plaintiff complains that officials at

MaCI have interfered with his constitutional right of access to the

courts. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that a program on the computer

terminals in the MaCI law library, i.e., “snap shot,” “allows staff to

covertly read and monitor what inmates type and research on the computer

terminals,” Plaintiff’s Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Second

Motion for a TRO, ¶ 2, attached to Doc. No. 28; that the MaCI law library

has not been open for as many hours per week as state policy, i.e., DRC

Policy 59-LEG-01, requires; that law library computer terminals have

recently been restricted to “research only,” Doc. No. 28, p. 5, and

inmates are no longer permitted to use those terminals to type legal

documents and that plaintiff has experienced consequent increased delays

in accessing prison typewriters to prepare his legal documents; and that

plaintiff believes that these new policies were enacted in retaliation

for his efforts to pursue litigation.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution

guarantees to inmates a right of access to the courts. Lewis v. Casey,

518 U.S. 343 (1996); Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977); Pilgrim v.

Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir.1996). Although the Constitution

assures “adequate, effective, and meaningful” access, Bounds, 430 U.S.

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00229-ALM-NMK Doc #: 30 Filed: 07/09/12 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
at 822, the right is nevertheless not unlimited. For example,

restrictions on the time, place and manner in which inmates may engage

in legal research and draft legal documents are permissible so long as

the restrictions do not unreasonably impede the right of access to the

courts. Walker v. Mintzes, 771 F.2d 920, 932 (6th Cir. 1985). Moreover,

inmates have no independent constitutional right of access to computers,

see White-Bey v. Griggs, 43 F.App’x 792 (6th Cir. 2002); Lehn v. Hartwig,

13 F.App’x 389, 392 (7th Cir. 2001), nor do they have a First Amendment

right of access to typewriters, Mulazim v. Bailey, 107 F.3d 12 (Table),

1997 WL 48988, *1 (6th Cir. February 4, 1997). Plaintiff does not allege

that he has been precluded from pursuing his litigation; rather,

plaintiff alleges only that he has been inconvenienced in doing so. 

Furthermore, absent an allegation that an inmate has suffered actual

prejudice in constitutionally protected litigation, the fact that a

prison law library is not open for as long as state policy allegedly

requires is immaterial to the constitutional analysis. See Lewis, 518

U.S. at 351; Walker, 771 F.2d at 932

Plaintiff also alleges, curiously, that he has “observed” the

“covert[]” monitoring of his activity on the computer terminals through

the use of “snap shot” software. Even assuming the accuracy of

plaintiff’s suspicions in this regard, because MaCI inmates, including

plaintiff, will no longer be using prison computer terminals to draft

legal documents, injunctive relief will not be necessary to assure that

prison officials do not monitor the substance of plaintiff’s legal

writings.

Finally, plaintiff alleges that he has “been informed that

[he] personally had something to do with the reason why Defendants

3

Case: 2:12-cv-00229-ALM-NMK Doc #: 30 Filed: 07/09/12 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
instituted the restriction on the computer terminals in the law library; 

. . .” Plaintiff’s Declaration in Support of Plaintiff’s Second Motion

for a TRO, ¶ 17. A plaintiff asserting a claim of retaliation must show

that he engaged in protected conduct, that an adverse action was taken

against him that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from

continuing to engage in that conduct, and that the adverse action was

motivated at least in part by the protected conduct. Thaddeus-X v.

Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 394 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc). Plaintiff’s vague

and ambiguous allegations are, in the view of this Court, insufficient

to warrant the extraordinary remedy of interim injunctive relief. Even

crediting plaintiff’s assertion, which appears to be based on hearsay, 

plaintiff offers no reason why this Court should assume that a

restriction on the use of the limited number of computer terminals was

based on the substantive nature of plaintiff’s litigation activities –

as opposed to the amount of time that plaintiff spent on those limited

resources.

In short, the Court concludes that plaintiff has failed to

establish a strong likelihood of success on the merits of a claim that

he has been denied his constitutional right of access to the courts. The

Court also concludes that plaintiff has failed to establish that he would

suffer irreparable injury should the requested injunction not issue. It

is therefore RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary

Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction, Doc. No. 28, be DENIED.

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report

and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and

serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation,

4

Case: 2:12-cv-00229-ALM-NMK Doc #: 30 Filed: 07/09/12 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part

thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28

U.S.C. §636(b)(1); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must be

filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. 

F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to

the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de

novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the decision

of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers,

Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters, 

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

 s/Norah McCann King 

 Norah McCann King

 United States Magistrate Judge

DATE: July 9, 2012

5

Case: 2:12-cv-00229-ALM-NMK Doc #: 30 Filed: 07/09/12 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Case: 2:12-cv-00229-ALM-NMK Doc #: 30 Filed: 07/09/12 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>